Arguments vs. Explanations Arguments and explanations share a lot of common features. In fact, it can be hard to tell the difference between them if you look just at the structure. Sometimes, the exact same structure can function as an argument or as an explanation depending on the context. At the same time, arguments are very different in terms of what they try to accomplish. Explaining and arguing are very different activities even though they use the same types of structures. In a similar vein, building something and taking it apart are two very different activities, but we typically use the same tools for both. Arguments and explanations both have a single sentence as their primary focus. In an argument, we call that sentence the “conclusion”, it’s what’s being argued for. In an explanation, that sentence is called the “explanandum”, it’s what’s being explained. All of the other sentences in an argument or explanation are focused on the conclusion or explanandum. In an argument, these other sentences are called “premises” and they provide basic reasons for thinking that the conclusion is true. In an explanation, these other sentences are called the “explanans” and provide information about how or why the explanandum is true. So in both cases we have a bunch of sentences all focused on one single sentence. That’s why it’s easy to confuse arguments and explanations, they have a similar structure. Premises/Explanans Conclusion/Explanandum What is an argument? An argument is an attempt to provide support for a claim. One useful way of thinking about this is that an argument is, at least potentially, something that could be used to persuade someone about the truth of the argument’s conclusion. If you want to persuade someone that your conclusion is true, you have to start from premises that they likely already agree with. So in an argument, the premises tend to be less controversial than the conclusion. If the premises were more controversial than the conclusion, then the argument would have very little persuasive power. The primary issue that an argument tries to resolve is whether the conclusion is true. Suppose you’re wondering whether it’s a good day for a bike ride. You look outside and notice dark clouds. You check the weather forecast, rain is predicted. You step outside and notice it’s quite chilly. On the basis of these three pieces of information you decide not to go for a bike ride today. We can show the structure of your reasoning as follows: There are dark clouds. It’s cold. The forecast calls for rain. ---------------------------------- It’s not a good day for a bike ride. The important thing to notice is that the first three sentences are reasons for believing that the last sentence, the conclusion, is true. In this case, you have more confidence in the first three sentences than in the last one. But finding out that each of these three sentences is true makes you a little bit more convinced that the conclusion is true also. This is what makes this an argument, one sentence is being established as true on the basis of other sentences. We can see the process of building an argument as somewhat like building a house. What you’re really interested in is having a nice kitchen and living room. But before you can build those, you have to put down a foundation, something to support the rest of the house. Without the foundation, the house isn’t stable. Let’s see how this works by looking at another argument. Suppose you want to convince a friend to go to college at Ashford. You come up with the following argument. P1) College graduates typically earn more. P2) Going to college is a good example for your children. P3) An online University lets you get a degree without having to move. P4) Classes that only last for five weeks are easier to fit in with your busy schedule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- C) You should enroll at Ashford University. The premises of this argument are what the conclusion rests on, they support it. We can picture this support like the support that a foundation gives to a house. C P1 P2 P3 P4 Arguments can be more complicated than this, but the same idea about support still applies. For example, you may have noticed that P1 and P2 are reasons for going to college generally, but P3 and P4 are reasons that Ashford may be a good choice for your friend. So you could really make your argument more compete as follows. P1) College graduates typically earn more. P3) An online University lets you get a degree without having to move. P2) Going to college is a good example for your P4) Classes that only last for five weeks are children. easier to fit in with your busy schedule. ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- S1) You should go to college. S2) Ashford would be a good fit for you. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ C) You should enroll at Ashford University. Here, our premises support smaller conclusions. We might call them sub-conclusions, using the same kind of idea as a subtotal. Just as a subtotal is a total we get before we add in everything to get the final total, a sub-conclusion is a conclusion we reach from some of our premises before we get to our final conclusion. Using the house model, we can draw a picture of the support in this argument. C S1 S2 P1 P2 P3 P4 The foundation (premises) supports the walls (sub-conclusions) which in turn provide support for the roof (conclusion). The premises are reasons for thinking that the sub-conclusions are true. The sub- conclusions are reasons for thinking the final conclusion is true; each level supports the next. This is the key feature of an argument. No matter how complicated it is, each level of an argument is used a reason for thinking that the next level is true. If this feature is absent, you don’t have an argument. What is an explanation? In contrast, the main purpose of an explanation is to provide a deeper understanding of something that is already accepted as true. The focal point of an explanation (we call it the explanandum) is generally accepted by both parties in the conversation. We accept that a certain thing is true, but we a better understanding of why or how it’s true. Suppose your car won’t start. You want to know why it won’t start. Is it a dead battery? A bad starter? Cruel fate? You look down at the dash and realize that your headlight switch is in the full on position. You remember that last night you used the headlights after you parked the car to help you find something in the garage. So you form an explanation somewhat like the following: You left the lights on. Leaving the lights one will drain the battery. A drained battery will prevent the car from starting. --------------------------------------------------------------------- That’s why your car won’t start. The important thing to notice is that finding out that you left the lights on is not the reason you believe that your car won’t start. You know your car won’t start because you turned the key and nothing happened. Noticing that your lights were left on doesn’t make you even more convinced that your car won’t start, it just helps you understand why your car won’t start. This is an explanation because the other facts help us understand why the final sentence is true, but they aren’t used to show that the final sentence is true. This difference is absolutely critical in understanding the difference between arguments and explanations. How can we tell whether someone is arguing or explaining? It can be tricky to tell whether someone is arguing or explaining, especially if you’re reading a text and can’t just ask the author for clarification. Sometimes the speaker doesn’t really know whether they are arguing or explaining. It’s pretty easy to switch from one to the other without really realizing it. Nonetheless, it’s important to be able to tell the difference both when listening to others and when crafting our own arguments and explanations. This is because arguments and explanations are trying to accomplish different goals; what makes an effective argument may not make an effective explanation. A good way to start telling whether a passage is an argument is to identify the main point or central focus of the passage. If the author hasn’t done so, restate the main point as a single, simple sentence. Try to avoid including words like “because” or “therefore” in your restatement. What you’re looking for is the sentence that will be either the conclusion or explanandum depending on whether the passage is an argument or an explanation. Ask yourself, if this is an argument, what is its conclusion? Once you’ve identified the potential conclusion try to determine whether the author is attempting to convince you that that sentence is true, or whether the author assumes you agree with the sentence and is trying to help you understand why or how the sentence is true. If they are trying to convince you, they are arguing. If they are trying to help you get a deeper understanding, they are explaining. Remember, the difference between arguing and explaining has more to do with the goal of the conversation than with the structure. To highlight this, let’s have another look at the explanation about why your car won’t start.